R v Rustom; R v Vernon - [2017] NSWDC 245

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rustom; R v Vernon [2017] NSWDC 245
Hearing dates: 31 July, 1 – 2 August 2017
Date of orders: 02 August 2017
Decision date: 02 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
R v Rustom: I set a NPP of 3 years, 3 months, commencing 18/11/15 and expiring 17/2/19. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 2 years to commence upon the expiration of the NPP and expiring 17/2/21. The total sentence is, therefore, 5 years and 3 months comprising the NPP and the balance of the sentence.
R v Vernon: I set a NPP of 2 years, commencing 18/09/15 and expiring 17/9/17. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 1 year, 9 months to commence upon the expiration of the NPP, and expiring 17/6/19. The total sentence is, therefore, 3 years and 9 months comprising the NPP and the balance of the sentence.
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – co-offenders – supply of prohibited drug, namely cocaine – commercial quantity
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Waeil Rustom (Offender)
Robert Max Vernon (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr K Gilson (Crown)
Mr B Walker SC with Mr E James (Rustom)
Ms A Francis (Vernon)
Solicitors:
Solicitors for ODPP (Crown)
Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Rustom)
Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Vernon)

File Number(s): 2015/273894 (Rustom)2015/274045 (Vernon)
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Each of Waeil Rustom and Robert Max Vernon stands before me for sentence as a consequence of having pleaded guilty to a charge contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. Each has pleaded guilty to supplying a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity. The amount in question is 355 grams of cocaine. The maximum penalty for this offence is twenty years imprisonment and/or a fine of 3500 penalty units. There is a standard non-parole period of ten years. The two offenders currently before me appeared before me last Monday and yesterday for sentence with four other offenders but their sentencing hearing has been adjourned until September.

Facts

The relevant facts are these. In March 2015 the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad and the NSW Crime Commission commenced an investigation into a number of participants identified as Waeil Rustom, Robert Vernon, Abdul Rustom, the younger brother of Waeil Rustom, Cabdiqure Gure, Ahmed Naaman and Denial Sfeir. Through the use of lawful telephone intercepts, a surveillance device, controlled drug purchases, and physical and covert surveillance, police identified what they considered to be an organised drug syndicate involving the supply of cocaine to numerous customers at street level. Waeil Rustom was responsible for directing the activities of the supply of cocaine. He supplied cocaine to Robert Vernon who advertised his working hours as being between 3pm and 12 midnight. If Vernon needed further bags of cocaine for supply he would make telephone contact with Waeil Rustom. Waeil Rustom had supplied Vernon with a motor vehicle, firstly…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rustom; R v Vernon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWDC 245
Decision Date: 02 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Rustom and Vernon, were convicted for their roles in the supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the sentencing for their respective crimes was determined. The primary issue before the court was to establish an appropriate sentence that reflected the severity of their criminal conduct while considering the principles of justice and proportionality.

The court had to address the appropriate balance between the need for punishment and deterrence, and the possibility of rehabilitation for both defendants. This involved considering the nature and extent of their involvement in the drug supply, their criminal history, and the potential impact of their actions on the community. The court also had to determine the appropriate length of the non-parole periods and the subsequent custodial sentences that would serve both punitive and rehabilitative purposes.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant role each defendant played in the drug supply operation, highlighting the commercial scale of the activity and the potential harm to the community. The court set a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months for Rustom, with an additional 2 years imprisonment, making a total sentence of 5 years and 3 months. For Vernon, the court set a non-parole period of 2 years, with an additional 1 year and 9 months imprisonment, resulting in a total sentence of 3 years and 9 months. The court emphasised the need for both punishment and deterrence, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court reflected the sentences determined, specifying the exact duration of the non-parole periods and the total custodial sentences for each defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

R v Rustom: I set a NPP of 3 years, 3 months, commencing 18/11/15 and expiring 17/2/19. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 2 years to commence upon the expiration of the NPP and expiring 17/2/21. The total sentence is, therefore, 5 years and 3 months comprising the NPP and the balance of the sentence.

R v Vernon: I set a NPP of 2 years, commencing 18/09/15 and expiring 17/9/17. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 1 year, 9 months to commence upon the expiration of the NPP, and expiring 17/6/19. The total sentence is, therefore, 3 years and 9 months comprising the NPP and the balance of the sentence.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Rustom; R v Vernon [2017] NSWDC 245
Hearing dates:	31 July, 1 – 2 August 2017
Date of orders:	02 August 2017
Decision date:	02 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	R v Rustom: I set a NPP of 3 years, 3 months, commencing 18/11/15 and expiring 17/2/19. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 2 years to commence upon the expiration of the NPP and expiring 17/2/21. The total sentence is, therefore, 5 years and 3 months comprising the NPP and the balance of the sentence. R v Vernon: I set a NPP of 2 years, commencing 18/09/15 and expiring 17/9/17. I impose a further period of imprisonment of 1 year, 9 months to commence upon the expiration of the NPP, and expiring 17/6/19. The total sentence is, therefore, 3 years and 9 months comprising the NPP and the balance of the sentence.
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – co-offenders – supply of prohibited drug, namely cocaine – commercial quantity
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Waeil Rustom (Offender) Robert Max Vernon (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr K Gilson (Crown) Mr B Walker SC with Mr E James (Rustom) Ms A Francis (Vernon) Solicitors: Solicitors for ODPP (Crown) Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Rustom) Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Vernon)
File Number(s):	2015/273894 (Rustom)2015/274045 (Vernon)
Publication restriction:	Nil